Jump to content

Talk:Norval Morrisseau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morrisseau's Anishinaabe name?

[edit]

Though the article states Morrisseau's Anishinaabe name as "Miskwaabik Animiiki" that I corrected to ᒥᐦᐢᒁᐱᐦᐠ ᐊᓂᒥᐦᑮ (Miskwaabik Animikii)—since the word for a Thunderbird or a Thunderbeing or a Thunderer is "Animikii" and not "Animiiki"— looking at his work, I see he signs his name instead as ᐅᓵᐚᐱᐦᑯᐱᓀᐦᓯ (Ozaawaabiko-binesi), which translates not as "Copper Thunderer" but instead as "Brassy [Thunder]Bird". Do anybody know where the original "Miskwaabik Animiiki" citation came from since anyone who can read Syllabics can readily tell you that his signature says "Ozaawaabiko-binesi" and not "Miskwaabik Animikii"? In the unpointed script, by the way which is the way he signs his paintings, his name is written as ᐅᓴᐘᐱᑯᐱᓀᓯ. Also, if you're seeing jibberish here, download a font with UniCode Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics range; see Anishinaabe language article for a link to such a site. CJLippert 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Norval Morrisseau.jpeg

[edit]

Image:Norval Morrisseau.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out a section for now

[edit]

Hey folks, before we become uncivil over this article, I am commenting out the "Fakes and Forgeries" section. I strongly suggest those individuals having a major issue with this section to work thing out either off-line or elsewhere and when a consensus have been reached, edit the commented-out section to such a way that appeases most folks, and un-comment-out the section. Issue surrounding forgeries are significant enough to have that be addressed in this article, but it should be presented in a way that is NPOV and address the points we all agree upon. CJLippert (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally added in the article and moved here by CJLippert (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas any member of the public can edit or alter nay entry into this blog I refer to a public doucement in www.norvalmorrisseaulawsuit.com. If you are interested in the truth I suggest you review that web site and www.norvalmorrisseaulegaldefencefund.com. 123thehabs (talk)
But Wikipedia is not a blog. Now, let's discuss the issues at hand. CJLippert (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommned that the comment section on the subject of "fakes" and forgies be omitted. THe writers of this blog (which this really is) talk about "fakes" until the cows come home. THis blog should at least admit that these people (the Kinsman Robinson Gallery) cannot point to one case in which they have ever proven one in court. They claim that they even know who are painting them, they have hired investagators etc but thry can't seem to prove one. As far as the Norval Morrisseau Hertigage Society goes try contacting them. It's impossible because the email address to contract them is controlled by the KR Gallery of which they admit on their blog.
I think this section should be omitted because it sullys the name of a great Canadian artist for no reason and with no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123thehabs (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the section because I think it is something that should be covered in the article, but the amount of different people contributing to it and the high rate at which the section was being changed, as well as the lack of proper third party citations is a concern. I would suggest setting up a test page (ie. Norval Morrisseau/Sandbox) to work on making a better section about fakes, and once a well written section has been made it can be put into the article. I don't have the time to devote much effort to this and personally prefer to not contribute to articles about people so I'll just sit and keep an eye on things. vıdıoman 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea. If others like the suggestion, let's move the commented-out section to the proposed sandbox page, and hash this out until we have a consensus, and then insert the section back into the article. CJLippert (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be unnecessary censorship. If there is a dispute about the content, then please identify the offending sections, and present a compelling argument for their removal or revision. Paras 1-2 outline the reason why Morriseau established the NMHS. Para 2 is a matter of public record, ADAC did issue the directive to its members. Para 4 evidence is presented in the notarized declarations issued to number of dealers and galleries Morrisseau felt were dealing in misattributed works - these are publicly available through the Ontario Superior Court (I was unsure how to record the copyright on these). Para 5 is common knowledge - a number of blogs, as listed in the source website, document the controversy over the authenticity of the 70s style paintings - Morrisseau himself identified painting in this style as fakes and imitations. Paras 1-5 are not the matter of opinion, but are well-documented facts. Of course para 6 can be easily supported by the dozens and dozens of threats received by the NMHS, the press and other interested and affected parties whenever the issue of authenticity is raised publicly. The cited website, www.norvalmorrisseaulawsuit.com, presents an interesting account of a court case that was settled, with no admission of guilt or liability on the part of either party, so in itself is completely inconclusive, and although of marginal historical interest, hardly germane to this Wikipedia entry.
I uncommented-out the section and added a {{POV-section}} tag. vıdıoman 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting some of the text. I have reinserted the paragraph related to the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society and added a document from the Society's solicitor that confirms the existence and purpose of the Society. Also added evidence of the NMHS in Red Lake during 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.browne (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply ask what proof of fakes can anybody prove. To date, Kinsman Robinson has never sued one person and yet they claim "fakes" are out there. Don Robinson in the national Post article of May 18th, 2001 said that Kahn Auctions was selling "fake" Morrisseau's. Yet at www.norvalmorrisseaulawsuit.com one can clearly see that Mr. Robinson bought 28 paintings from the same source he called "fakes". Funny thing that this fact is not mentioned in the article. The whole articel is full of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123thehabs (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 123thehabs comments; surely Norval Morrisseau's sworn declarations are proof enough? This is the sworn testimony of the artist himself. Or can 123thehabs provide evidence that these statements are not authentic? If so, it would be a very valuable contribution. There are sales records from these galleries and dealers that prove items Morrisseau identified as fakes in his declarations were subsequently sold as Morrisseaus by these same galleries and dealers. These sales records are publicly available from the Ontario Superior Court. It would also be useful if 123habs could be a little more constructive and identify the "other lies". It would be quite valuable if 123thehabs could pinpoint which of the statements are "lies" and offer evidence that these statements are not credible. To repeat, 123thehabs cites the website www.norvalmorrisseaulawsuit.com which presents an interesting account of a court case that was settled out of court, with no admission of guilt or liability on the part of either party, so in itself is completely inconclusive, and although of marginal historical interest, hardly germane to this Wikipedia entry. Regarding Kinsman Robinson, this comment is a red herring. My understanding is the items were purchased and then subsequently donated to the NMHS. But I have not seen any documents to indicate that this is the case, but I also have not seen any sale records that would indicate otherwise, unless of course 123thehabs could provide such valuable evidence. Nevertheless, the gallery in question has responded to a number of 123thehabs' questions at http://genuinemorrisseau.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-favorite-top-10-lies.html, and again, if 123thehabs can provide some documents to counter these responses, it would be valuable information to bring to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.browne (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that unless 123thehabs can provide some documentation that provides evidence for the many accusations leveled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123thehabs), suggest that the current Wikipedia entry remain and the note regarding the neutrality of the section be removed. In my view, the entry is well documented to typical Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.browne (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of comments/concerns: I'm not sure that the Fakes and forgeries section clearly reflects the other side of the story. I don't think any of the text here should be deleted, but maybe some mention should be made of the fact that some of the claims made in the section are disputed. (I'm not trying to be an apologist for 123thehabs at all - I've reverted his/her edits, too.) For example, from Collectors sue gallery over disputed painting: "Mr. Morrisseau himself, according to documents filed in Ontario Superior Court, is alleged to have declared the painting a fake in 2006 in an e-mail to Heffel, an art auction house that was trying to sell Grandfather Speaks on behalf of the painting's then owner, Joseph Otavnik, an Oshawa art collector. These documents say that Heffel then withdrew the painting from the auction.
    But is the painting really a fake?
    Mr. Morrisseau's word back then, when he was seriously ill with Parkinson's disease, was not accepted as gospel by everyone. So maybe the painting is real, after all. It depends upon whom you want to believe."     This article also indicates that there is a dispute: Ojibwa painter's sons at odds over maintaining his artistic legacy. That said, I think there is probably more evidence that the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society is the authentic arbiter of the authenticity of the paintings. I don't necessarily think that the Morrisseau Family Foundation needs to have as much weight as the NMHS, because the reliable sources all seem to be devoting more column inches to the NMHS. It really should, however, be reflected in the article that there is a documented, sourced dispute going on. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the NMHS has done nothing of note since it's inception approximately 5 years ago - i.e it is in fact inactive. It has column inches but has it really done anything? From what I understand the NMHS is currently inactive so I think it is a fair question to be considered. From what I understand the Family Foundation is indeed currently active so perhaps they should be given more weight? Something to onsider in all fairness.[[User:Misterlobat] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlobat (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I think WIKIPEDIA should take note that there are numerous individuals and galleries alleged to be selling counterfeit Morrisseau art pieces. Mr. Morrisseau, as evidenced by the Sworn Declarations filed in the Superior Court of Ontario and included in this WIKI entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morrisseau_Declarations_1.jpg) (more complete versions here > http://www.morrisseau.com/files/Morrisseau_Declarations_2003-2007.pdf), also made such allegations and the parties are named in those declarations. The entry by Misterlobat is misleading and purposefully at odds with the wishes of this artist and the factual evidence. This leads me to conclude that it is very likely that said individuals, or their associates, are trying to implement a campaign of disinformation. I say this because Misterlobat has indicated the NMHS are not active and in fact stated: "...the NMHS has done nothing of note since its inception approximately 5 years ago - i.e (sic) it is in fact inactive." WIKI should monitor such comments and block such users from posting where possible.

  • FACT: The NMHS are active
 EVIDENCE (1): http://www.goredlake.com/~rlhc/PDF/NMHS.pdf

 EVIDENCE (2): Speech by NMHS member Dr. McLuhan / May 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAalhDUz8E)

 EVIDENCE (3): Richard Baker, a member of the NMHS, recently appeared in Court as a witness in one of recent trials surrounding the counterfeit paintings controversy. (Superior Court of Ontario case file SC 09-00082782-0000)


CONCLUSION ONE: The NMHS are active. The reality is they are as evidenced by my entry and clearly contrary to statements made by those who seek to spread disinformation on WIKI.

  • NOTE: It is interesting to note that a previously banned user (123thehabs) made a similar false statement before on WIKI which was refuted yet reappears here from Misterlobat.

CONCLUSION TWO: Norval Morrisseau completely disassociated himself from the Morrisseau Family Foundation and his estranged children. His estranged children have been associating with individuals and galleries that were subjects of his Sworn Declarations alleging the sale of counterfeit paintings.

  • Supporting evidence for such a statement:

1) Christian Morrisseau and Artworld of Sherway > http://www.artworldofsherway.com/Featured%20Artists/ChristianM/ChristianMCollection.htm

2) Christian Morrisseau and Donnie Kim (owner of Gallery Sunami - now operating as morrisseauart.com)> http://morrisseauart.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249:filling-in-the-spaces&catid=43:legacy&Itemid=208

3) Christian Morrisseau and Maslak Mcleod > http://www.maslakmcleod.com/painting/Christian-Morrisseau.html

The artist gave the Morrisseau Family Foundation no credibility and in fact made it clear he wanted nothing to do with it.--Morrisseaufan (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norval Morrisseau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norval_Morrisseau&oldid=1207982188"